If the objective
of the summit activity is to make a distinction between "big systems" and
"systems engineering" then combining the tracks would make the identification
of that distinction more difficult.

AA: Right.

I believe this primary distinction is important.

AA: Again right, one thing is the
subject of study, systems themselves, another - all possible methods,
approaches, tools and instruments, however effective and
general.

However, I agree that combining the tracks will not stop discussion. It
will just eliminate the requirement to make a "best guess" categorization of
area to place the topic. Discussion of this fundamental selection would
enable the communication of each individuals point of view.

For
example, I would have placed the discussion of Cyc in Big Systems, not Systems
Engineering. I would place the earth weather system in Big Systems, not
Systems Engineering.

AA: It's rather a knowledge tool, falls
into a related field of SE, a Cognitive Systems Engineering, or Knowledge
Systems Engineering.

I would place the discussion of component engineering languages in the
Systems Engineering area but would call it concurrent component engineering,
not systems engineering. There is a difference between distributed,
concurrent component engineering and Systems Engineering.

AA: The whole point of SE is to be about
a total system, an integrated configuration of distributed components,
parts and elements, as people, facilities, policies, documents, software,
hardware, etc., to produce system-level results,
qualities, characteristics, functions, behavior, performance, or
processes.

But that just my take on the domain areas, other views are just as valid
at this level.

Seeing JackRing, JosephSimpson, TerryLongstreth, etc.'s
misgivingsabout the announcement on "combining the tracks 1&2", (and
evenJohnSowa's use of "track" in his suggestion that we look at Cyc)
Ibelieve we need some clarification on the following really means,
interms of the OntologySummit process.

This is my take on the
matter ...

* Track - a broadstroke partitioning of various
sub-focus under thetheme, which allows us to cluster and manage the
OntologySummitdiscourse more effectively

** Track Title - a label
that broadly describes what a particular track covers

** Track
Mission - a statement describing what a particular trackintends to
achieve (and possibly a bit on how it intends to do it)

** Track
champion - volunteers who are committing a lot of time andeffort to help
get things organized (within a track), moderate thediscussions, host
virtual panel sessions, and who will, eventuallyhelp synthesize the
inputs, contributions and learnings from thecommunity that were
channeled to a particular track

* (virtual) Session - the weekly
2-hour virtual (augmented conferencecall) events that are featured
during the 3-months while theOntologSummit is in session. These are
(nominally) chaired andorganized by the track champions. Because of the
time limitation,there will only be about a dozen of these. Depending on
the number oftracks there are, each track ends up getting only one or
two of thesesessions. These are the occasions where summit participants
get tointeract synchronously. Participants are invited to offer to
presentbriefs of relevance (by sending a title and an abstract of what
theywant to present to the track champions for consideration), or
justcome to the sessions, and share their insights (which will
getdocumented and archived) in real time.

* (discussion) Thread /
Subject - discussions made over the[ontology-summit] mailing list. These
are usually jump-started, andcoordinated by track champions. Topics can
also be initiated by anyonein the OntologySummit community (i.e. those
who are subscribed to thatparticular mailing list) as long as they are
relevant to the Summittheme; and, of course, preferably relevant to a
particular trackmission. Participants are requested to properly prefix
and label adiscussion thread's subject line to make it easier for
everyone (andfor those who will be trying to synthesize the
transactions.)Contributions should stay on topic, an if the discussion
is taking offin a new direction, the contributor should also modify the
subjectline as appropriate. This is the most generally used platform,
with no(within reason) limits (other than the contributors' time
andimagination), and works asynchronously among the
OntologySummitparticipants.

* Constraints - there are a lot that can be done,
but only some willget done because we are constraint by time (~3 months)
and the limitedvolunteered resources. Therefore, if anyone is passionate
about seeinga particular aspect properly addressed, please volunteer
yourself tohelp drive it.

So, (my take again) ...

-
Did we 'kill' the distinction between "systems engineering"
and"engineered systems" by combining the two tracks? ... I don't
thinkso. Those discussion threads are still alive and kicking on
the[ontology-summit] list and in the in-session chat inputs. No one
is(or can) call a stop to them.

- Did we "kill" any discussion?
... not by way or combining orrelabeling the tracks; but with the
posting of the new track-1&2mission statement, the focus should now
be very clearly defined, andone can better see where the champions would
want to see thediscussions be directed.

- Can we start a "track
on Cyc"? ... probably not (any more) at thisstage; and given the
constraints, even having a "session just on Cyc"may not be the most
appropriate. However, JohnSowa's call to ourpaying attention to
Cyc and discuss what we are learning from it, is aabsolutely brilliant
idea. Input into that thread John just startedwill help move the
discussion forward. I'm sure Cyc has material thatis relevant to any and
all of our tracks, and various track championscan consider addressing
certain aspects in one of their virtualsessions. Getting those
activities properly coordinated would be theorganizing committee's job
(which the various co-champions candiscuss, offline, in the organizing
committee meetings or on their[ontology-summit-org]
list.)

Regards. =ppy--

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at
6:18 AM, Jack Ring <jring7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:>
Having combined two distinct topics into one track you now ask that we
deselect our sub-topics to fit the limited bandwidth. Will this arrive at a
compelling summit in April?

> On Jan 27, 2012, at 2:01 AM,
Matthew West wrote:>>> Gentlemen,>> Thank you
very much for your contributions yesterday. Your talks obviously>>
raised considerable interest.>>>> If there is a problem,
it is that there is just too much material to go at>> in the
remainder of the Ontology Summit on this track. So I would ask
you>> each to nominate just two focussed topics from the
discussions last night,>> that you would like to see progress made
during the rest of the summit.>>>> Mine are:>>
- Ontology of System Components>> - Design Language
Interoperability>>>>>>
Regards>>>> Matthew West>> Information
Junction>> Tel: +44 1489 880185>> Mobile: +44 750
3385279>> Skype: dr.matthew.west>> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/>> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/>>>>
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in
England>> and Wales No. 6632177.>> Registered office: 2
Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,>> Hertfordshire,
SG6
3JE.